





-HkK 



"""a 




Glass F (^ S " 



';^ 



Rook . Ti T.'^ 



SPEECH 



HON. a A. DOUGLAS. OF ILLINOIS, 



KANSAS TERRITORIAL AFFAIRS. 






iJELlTBRED Ilf THE SENATH DTNITED STATES, MARCH SO, l«58. 



WASHINGTON : 

nUDfOO At THi xmionf oyiTcaB, 

1856. 

# 



• 



f US' 



SPEECH. 



The Senate, as in commvttee of the whole, having taken up for consideration the 
bill to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a constitution and 
State government, preparatory to their admission into the Union when they have 
the requisite population — 

Mr. DOUGLAS said : 

Mr. President : I will ask the indulgence of the Senate for such length of time 
as the subject may require, provided my strength do not fail me, while I submit 
some views in vindication of the majority report, and in answer to that of the 
minority, of the Committee on Territories, ujjon the Kansas question. 

In the first place, however, as we have taken up for consideration the bill reported 
by the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of that territory to form 
a constitution and State government, preparatory to admission into the Union, it is 
due to the subject that I should give a brief exposition of the provisions and princi- 
ples of the bill. 

The first section provides, that whenever the Territory of Kansas shall contain 
93,420 inhabitant?, to be ascertained by a census, taken in conformity with law, 
(that being the present ratio for a member of Congiess,) a convention may be called 
by the legislature of the Territory to form a constitution and State government, 
preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State. 

The second section provides, that the convention shall be composed of twice the 
number of delegates which each district in the proposed State has representatives 
in the territorial legislature. At the election of those delegates it is proposed that 
all the white male inhabitants who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years, 
and who shall have resided six months in the Teriitory and three months in the 
district, may vote, provided they possess the qualifications required by the organic 
act of the Territory. By examination of the precedents, I find that it has been 
usual to prescribe the qualifications of the voters in the acts of ConQ;ress authorizing 
the people of the Territories to hold conventions and form constitutions preparatory 
to their admission into the Union. 

The several acts of Congress preparatory to the admission of the following States 
prescribed a residence varying from three to twelve months as a condition of voting, 
to wit: Illinois, six mouths; Indiana, twelve months; Ohio, twelve months; 
Mississippi, twelve months ; Missouri, three months ; Louisiana, twelve months ; 
Alabama, three months. Most of the other new States formed their constitutions 
under the authority of their territorial legislatures without the preliminary action of 
Congress. In preparing this bill I have adopted the medium according to the 
precedents running through our whole territorial history — six months' residence in 
the Territory and three months in the district in which the vote may be given. 

The third and only remaining section of the bill provides for the usual grants 
of land to be made to the State of Kansas, on the same terms upon which they 
have been made to most of the other new States. 

If there is anything objectionable in the details of the bill, they will be open to 
amendment, and I shall be ready to accept any amendment which my judgment 
approves. 

Now, sir, a few words in regard to the speech of my colleague [Mr. Trum bull] 
delivered the other day in this body. It is well known to the Senate th at the 
senator from Texas [Mr. Rusk] called the attention of my colleague to th e fact 



4 

that I was absent at the time, and for that reason suggested the propriety of a 
postponement of the discussion until I could be present. I was absent for the 
reason that the state of my health did not render it prudent for me to be present, 
and for the further reason that it had been distinctly understood and unanimously 
agreed, after a brief discussion, that all further discussion of the subject should be 
postponed for one week, and then ta be resumed on the bill now under considera- 
tion, when, according to the courtesies of the Senate, as well as the rules of parlia- 
mentary proceedings, I would be entitled to open the debate as the author of the 
report and bill, and the senator from Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,] as the author of 
the minority report, would be entitled to reply ; after which, the subject would b« 
open for free discussion by any senator who might desire to participate in it. Un- 
der theae circumstances, I had no right to expect that my colleague would take 
advantagfl of my absence, in violation of the established usages and courtesies of 
the Senate, to open the discussion, and to make an assault on ma personally as 
woU as upon the report of which I was tha author ! 
Ho commenced his remarks thus: 

" Mr. President, I cannot consent, entertaining the Tieim which I hold, that this report 
■ball go before the countrj without expressing mj dissent. I am aware, sir, that it is here 
accompanied bj a minoritj report which, in mj judgment, presents this Kansas question in a 
masterlj manner. It utterly refutes the majoritj report upon the great question at issue j: 
but, having been prepared without an opportunity to examine the majoritj report, it was 
impossibla .that it could meet and expose all its unfounded assumptions." 

I wish the Senate to bear in mind that this is the first discujsion which has 
taken place in the Senate between my colleague and myself, and that in the first 
paragraph of his first speech he could not refrain from a personal assault on myself.. 
Whaterer controversy, therefore, has grown out of it, or may result from it, is 
of his own seeking, unprovoked by me. Ha undertakes to tell the Senate, as a 
reason why he is not willing the majority report should go out to the country in 
connexion with the minority report, that the latter " having been prepared without 
an opportunity to examine the majority report, it was impossible that it could meet 
and expose all its unfounded assumptions." How does my colleague know that 
the senator from Vermont prepared the minority report without being allowed 
an opportunity to examine the majority report ! What authority has he for the 
insinuation that there was unfairness practised by the majority to the minority of 
the committee! Where is the authority for making the charge, or rather the in- 
nuendo, of unfairness? Every member of the committee knows that the majority 
report was read to the whole committee on the Monday before its presentation to 
the Senate, or rather that about two-thirds of the report, containing every part of it 
which has been the subject of criticism by my colleague, was read on Monday. The 
senator from Vermont, who wrote the minority report, was present, heard every word, 
and took notes at the time of the point* of dissent. The residue of the report 
was prepared on Monday night, and was read on Tuesday to the committee. The 
minority report was never shown to a member of the committee, or produced in 
eommittee, until the Wednesday afterward. Hence, the senator from Vermont 
had two entire days to prepare his dissent to all that part of the majority report 
which has been assailed by my colleague, and one day in regard to the rest of it. 

It is proper here to remark, that I otfered to postpone the time of making the 
report one day longer, if the senator from Vermont desired further time ; but, on 
Wednesday morning, he declined availing himself of the postponement, upon the 
ground that he was then ready to make his report, and accordingly proceeded to 
read it to the committee. Then, on what authority is this innuendo of unfairness 
made by my colleague ! A similar charge of unfairness was made in the news- 
' papers, over anonymous signatures, nearly two weeks before the reports were pre- 
pared, in order to prejudice the public mind, and break the force of the facts and 
conclusioBs of the report when it should be made. I exposed the fraud then in open 
Seaate, ia the preseccse of my colleague and of the author of the minority report 



I repeat the question. lu the face of these facts, on what authority does my col- 
league, in the first paragraph of his first speech in the Senate, in referring to me, 
insert an innuendo containing a charge so unfounded and so offensive, and which is 
known to bo unjust and untrue by every member of the committee? 

But ray colleague says the minority report is "masterly." Be it so. He says 
that it ," utterly refutes the majority report upon the great question at issue." The 
senator from New York [Mr. Seward] endorsed the minority report in similar 
terms ; and the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] returned his thanks to 
its author in like manner. The whole of that side of the chamber, including all 
the members of that party called anti-Nebraska men, or black republicans, endorse 
the opinion of my colleague that the minority report is a masterly production! 
Then, why not allow the two reports to go to the country together, and permit the 
discussion to proceed in the us*al mode which the practice of this body requires ? 
If the minority report is masteny, if it does utterly refute the majority report upon 
the great questions at issue, why does my colleague deem it necessary to be in such 
hot haste to rush into the discussion ? What is his excuse ? 

"But, haying been prepared without an opportunity to examine the majorit/- repr^yt ^ 
was impossible that it could meet and expose all its unfounded assumptions." 

My colleague is unwilling to let them go together, because, although the^ minority 
report refutes that of the majority on the great point at issue, he is no*^^ satisfied to 
leaTe the country to decide upon those points. He prefers wit'o^jrawing the 
attention of the people from the great questions at issue to thfj minor points^- 
to change the issue, and makeup a new one on the minor points ■iR'hich are not met 
by the minority report. I cannot accommodate my coUeaf ae by consentino- to 
that change of the issue. I am not willing that he shall n.ow pass from the o-reat 
points to the aiinor ones, and make personal issues with /nyself for the purpose of 
diverting public attention from the great questions involved in this contest between 
the democracy and the allied forces of know-nothingism and abolitionism. 

What are these miuor points ? — these " unfounded assumptions" — to which my 
colleague deemed it so necessary to reply at once ? Nearly every point upon which 
he assailed the majority report is alluded to by the minority report. It is true a 
large portion of his speech consisted in criticisms on my political course in oonnex- 
ion with the slavery question prior to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. I 
do not propose to reply to that portion of his speech on this occasion. The people 
of Illinois havo heard it from the stump in nearly every county of the State 
together with my reply to it. If his present speech is intended for that meridian,' 
I am willing that the people of Illinois should decide between us upon the case as 
there presented. If, on the other hand, it was intended to enlighten the Senate, I 
will pass it by in silence, and leave the judgment of the Senate" to stand as it was 
formed when the same points were made by Mr. Chase and other abolition sena- 
tors, and replied to by mo at the night session, when the Nebraska bill parsed. 

Nor, sir, shall I take time to vindicate myself against the innuendoes contained 
in the garbled extracts given by my colleague from some speeches which I may 
have made in 1849 and 1850. The senator has chosen to quote from one of mr 
speeches a phrase to the eflect that I knew of no man in America who was in favor 
of the extension of slavery into Territory now free. If he had shown the connexioH 
in which that remark was made, I should have no comment to make ; I was speak- 
ing of the proposition to extend slavery by act of Congress, and in reply to those 
who wished to prohibit slavery by act of Congress. In that connexion I may have 
said, and I ought to have said, that I knew of no man in America who was in favor 
of the extension of slavery. If my colleague had stated that the remark which he 
attributes to me was used with reference to the extension of slavery by act of Con- 
gress, or the action of the federal government, instead of leaving the people of each 
State and Territory free to decide the question for themselves, comment or expla- 
nation from me would have been uuuecessary. Other extracts were introduced 



tending to make a false issne, or a true one, as the case may be, on me, in order to 
draw public attention from the great issues, which, according to his statement, are 
utterly refuted by the minority report. I shall not spend time on these minor 
questions. 

One, however, I may allude to. He referred to that portion of the report of the 
committee which declares that the Kansas-Nebraska bill was intended to conform 
to the great principle of State equality and self-government, in obedience "to the 
constitution. The language of the report is: 

" The act of Congress for the organization of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska was 
designed to conform to the spirit and letter of the federal constitution, by preserving and 
maintaining the fundamental principle of equality among all the States of the Union, not- 
withstanding the restriction contained in the 8th section of the act of March 6, 1820, 
(preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,) %ohich assumed to deny to the 
people forever the right to settle the question of slavery fon themselves, provided they should 
make their homes and orgaxiize States north of 30 deg. SOToin. north latitude." 

My colleague replied to that — how ? He denied that the Missouri restriction 
assumed to do any such thing. He denied that it assumed to prohibit slavery in the 
Territory, except while it remained a Territory. This is one of the "unfounded as- 
sumptions" to which he deemed it his duty to be in haste to reply. This is the lan- 
guage which he employed : 

"Did the eighth section of the act, preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, 
assume what is here charged ? That provision, in my judgment, has been very much mis- 
understood. It is a provision relating to the '■territory' north of 36 deg. 30 min. north lati- 
tude, and not to the States to be formed out of it. I have not the provision before me, but 
I know that it provides substantially that ' in all that territory ' north of 36 deg. 30 min. 
slavery shall be_ forever prohibited. The word ' forever' occurs in it; and that word seems to 
be very potent in the estimation of some gentlemen ; but, like the word ' hereafter,' or any 
other word used in a law in reference to a Territory, it ceases to have effect whenever the 
Territory ceases to exist. After the Territory is admitted into the Union as a State, the laws 
provided for its government while a Territory become nugatory, unless some provision be 
made for their continuance." 

Is that one of the "unfounded assumptions" in the majority report? Is it true, 
as he says, that the act of Congress known as the Missouri Compromise, although 
it contained the word " forever," did not mean forever ? Is it true that, without the 
passage of the Nebraska bill, containing the repealing clause, the act of 1820 would 
have become nugatory and void on the people of the Territoi y forming a constitu- 
tion at Topeka and coming into the Union? If so, what is meant by "all the lead- 
ers of that great party of which he has become now so prominent a member when they 
charge me with violating a solemn compact — a compact which they say consecrated 
that Territory to "freedom forever?" They say it was a compact binding "forever." 
He says that is an unfounded assumption, for it was only a law which would be- 
come void without even being repealed ; it was a mere legislative enactment, like 
any other territorial law, and the word "forever" meant no more than "hereafter;" 
that it would expire by its own limitation. If this assumption be true, it neces- 
sarily follows that what he calls the Missouri Compromise was no compact — was not 
a contract — nor even a compromise, the repeal of which would involve a breach 
of faith! 

If he be right in this assumption, what excuse has he for joining in this crusade 
against me, and against the democratic party, on the ground that we have repealed 
a sacred compact — that we have removed the obligations of a s-olemn covenant 
which dedicated thecountiy io freedom, forever ? If his position be true, he con- 
victs all of his associates on that side of the chamber of having slandered me. If 
his position be true, the " unfounded assumptions" of which he speaks were the as- 
sumptions of his coadjutors, and not of myself. Why not arraign them for their 
unfounded assumptions ? Why not denounce them for having burned me in effigy 
on the charge that I had violated a solemn compact which, he says, was not a 
compact, but a mere ordinary act of legislation, intended to be temporary in its 



character, and to become nugatory and void whenever there should be people 
enough to form a government, and to assume the right to govern themselves ! 

Sir, I understand the object of this part of his speech perfectly. He knows that 
the abolitionists of Illinois will tolerate him even in such an " unfounded assump- 
tion," provided he makes his war bitter enough on me personally, and on the dem- 
ocratic organization throughout the State, to compensate them for this disavowal 
of a portion of their creed. It is intended to detach here and there a democrat 
from his party, and to carry them captive into the black republican camp, to help 
fight the battle in the next presidential campaign ; and in the event of success, he 
will be rewarded for his services upon the ground that the end justifies the means. 

Again, he makes the following quotation from my report, cutting the sentence 
in two, and omiting the first part of it : 

" Another branch of this report to which I desire to call attention is in these words : 
" ' In obedience to the constitution, the Kansas-Nebraska act declared, in the precise lan- 
guage of the compromise measures of 1850, that ' when admitted as a State the said Territory, 
or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their 
constitution may prescribe, at the time of their admission.'" 

On this passage of the repoil he comments as follows : 

"From this clause, which has no practical effect whatever, either in the compromise 
measures of 1850 or the Kansas-Nebraska act, it has been contended that Jthe compromise 
measures of 1850 were inconsistent with the compromise of 1820'. I deny the position. 
There is no inconsistency between them. The Missouri Compromise, as already shown, did 
tiot prevent the admission of a State into the Union with or without slavery, as its constitu- 
tion might precribe at the time of its admission." 

Here we are told that there " is no inconsistency between them" — the Missouri 
Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska act, and the Compromise of 1850 ; that "the 
Missouri Compromise did not prevent the admission of a State (Kansas or Nebraska) 
into the Union with or without slavery, as its constitution might prescribe at the 
time of admission." If this assumption be true — if the Missouri Compromise was 
not designed to prevent Kansas and the rest of the territory north of 36° 30' from 
coming into the Union as slave States — if it did not impose any prohibition or re- 
striction upon them in this respect — if, as is here asserted, they were at liberty to 
come into the Union with or without slavery, as they might choose, before the 
Kansas Nebraska bill was passed — and if the passage of that bill made no change 
in this respect, why is my colleague declaiming against it in the name of free- 
dom and humanity ? What harm has the Kansas-Nebraska act done to him and 
his associates, and to the cause of freedom, of which they profess to be the especial 
champions, if it be true, as my colleague now asserts, that slavery was not pro- 
hibited "forever" in those Territories, and that they would have had the same 
right to come into the Union as slave States as they now have under the Kansas- 
Nebraska act ? Why his desertion from the democratic party, and his alliance 
with black republicanism, if he really believes that the Missouri Compromise, like 
the Kansas-Nebraska act, left the people of those Territories perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, and to come into the 
Union with slavery, or without, as they might determine ? If his construction of 
the Missouri Compromise be correct, it was a mere temporary expedient, possessing 
none of the characteristics of a covenant or compact or contract — an ordinary legis- 
lative enactment, which was liable to be repealed at any time ; and which, if it had 
not been repealed, would have become nugatory and void in a very brief period. I 
feai thcu the anti-Nebrask-i p^.rly of Illinoi!-^ will regard these opinions of my col- 
league £iS " unfounded assimiptions." I regret that he did not enlighten his political 
brethren upon this subject, aod persuade them to the correctness of these opinions, 
prior to his own election to the Senate. Had the fusionists of Chicago understood 
the question in 1854, as he now explains it, I think I would have had very little 
trouble in obtaining a hearing in my own defence when I returned home that year. 



8 

Bu^, sir, I said diat I would not take time in the discussion of these minor poiuts 
which my colleague desired to bring into the debate, overlooking the great question 
at issue. My colleague states that question in these words: 

" The great fact remains, and it is not met bj the report that the people of Kansas have 
been conquered, as the governor himself once said, and a legislature has been imposed upon 
them by violence. Without denj'ing this, the report, to use a legal phrase, demurs to the 
declaration, thereby admitting the charge, but denying that it affords any reason why the 
acts of such a legislature should not be enforcsd !" 

Is it true that the great fact remains undenied that Kansas was conquered ? Is 
it true that the report dtmurs to this allegation, and thereby admits its truth ? In 
■what part of the report is such an admission to be found ? What line, what word 
in the report, gives the slightest pretext for such an assertion ? On the contrary, 
the report of the committee not only denies, but disproves, the truth of such a 
•charge, so conclusively that no man is inexcusable for repeating it. So over- 
■whelmicg is the proof of the majority report on this point, that the only mode in 
■which the minority could avoid or break its force was by suppressing the testimony 
■which disproved the truth of the allegation. I am aware that it is a grave and 
serious matter to state that the minority report suppresses the evidence which con- 
clusively disproves the truth of the allegation that Kansas was conquered, in order 
to arrive at a conclusion -which could never have been rendered plausible, except 
bv the suppression of the iJtcts as they appear on record and in official journals. 
B'ut I make the declaration boldly, tvith a full consciousness of all its responsibili- 
ties, and with a -willingness and ability at all times to make good the proposition 
to the entire satisfaction of all fair and impartial minds. 

The facts as presented in the ntHJority report, and proven by official land incon- 
trovertible evidence, are, that of the eighteen election districts into -which Kansas 
was divided, allegations of violence and illegal voting were made in seven, while 
there was not at the time any pretext of fraud, violence, or illegal voting in the 
other eleven districts. The election was held on the 30th of March, 1855, under 
the proclamation of Governor Reeder, and in pursuance of the rules and regulations 
prescribed by him. The proclamation provided, among other things, that ''in case 
any person or persons shall dispute the fairness or correctness of the return of any 
election district, they shall niake a written statement, directed to the governor, and 
setting forth the specific cause of complaint or errors in the conducting or returning 
of the election in said district, signed by not less thari ten qualified voters of the 
Territory, and with an affidavit of one or more qualified voters to the truth of the 
fact therein stated; and the stiid complaint and affidavit shall be presented to the 
governor on or before the 5th day of April next, when the proper proceedings will 
be taken to hear and decide such complaint." 

In view of this direct invitation on the part of the governor, to all men who werQ 
dissatisfied with the readt, to contest the election, and the assurance th-at he would 
" hear and decide such complaint," it does not appear from any source that ten men 
were ever found in any one of the eleven districts who were willing to sign the 
statement, or any one man who was willing to swear to the truth of the statement. 
that there had been fraud, violence, or illegal voting in any one of these eleven 
districts ! Such statements were made and presented to the governor in refereaca 
to some of the precincts ia sevjn of th ; eighteen districts, but none in the other 
eleven. These facts are distinctly set forth in the majority report, and conclusively 
proved by reference to the official papers. While these facts are cautiously con- 
cealed in the minority report, and the vague charge of fraud and violence substi- 
tuted for them in general terras, there is no sp_-cific denial of any one of these facts — 
no pretence that the election was contested ia any one of those eleven districts, or 
any man found to make the charge, much lesi to swear to the truth of it, a? re- 
quired ^^■- '' governor in his pi-o:;laination. These eleven districts, where there 
^1 and no complaints filed with the governor, elected a large majority 



9 

of both branches of the legislature — to wit, ten of the thirteen councilmen and 
serenteen of the twenty-six representatives of which, by the organic law of the 
Territory, the lew'islature was composed, and a majority of whom were to constitute 
a legal quorum for the transaction of legislative business. Hence it is entirely im- 
material, so far as the legality of the legislature is involved, whether the contested 
cases in the other seven districts were decided right or wrong. In either event 
there was a legal quorum of each branch of the legislature duly and fairly elected — 
a sufficient number, under the organic law of the Territory, to constitute the two 
houses a lawful legislative assembly, competent to pass laws binding on the inhabi- 
tants of the Territory, and to impart vitality and validity to their legislative acts. 
It is true that in the seven contested districts the governor, after receiving the pro- 
tests, and hearing the allegations of the parties, and inspecting the returns, set aside 
the returns, and ordered new elections in those districts, to be held on the 24fh of 
Maj of that year. At this second election three of the same persons who had been 
returned as duly elected on the 30th of March, and whose elections had been set 
aside by the governor, were re-elected, and in the other districts different persons 
were elected than those who received the highest number of votes at the general 
election on the 30th of March. Thus it appears that each one of the twenty-six 
representatives and thirteen councilmen who assembled at Pawnee city on the 2d 
of July, in obedien6e to the governor's proclamation, went there with his commis- 
sion certifying that he had been duly elected a member of the Kansas legislature. 
These facts are all distinctly set forth in the majority report, and no one of them 
directly contradicted in the report of the minority. 

Now, let us see how the minority report disposes of these incontrovertible facts. 
It says : 

" The governor of Kansas having, in pursuance to law, divided the Territorj into dis- 
tricts, and procured a census thereof", issued his proclamation for the election of a legislative 
assemblj therein, to take place on the 30th day of March, 1855, and directed how the same 
ihould be conducted, and the returns made to him, agreeably to the law establishing said 
Territory. On the day of election large bodies of armed men from the State of Missouri ap- 
peared at the polls in most of the districts, and by most violent and tumultuous carriage and 
demeanor overawed the defenceless inhabitants, and by their own votes elected a large ma- 
jority of the members of both houses of said assembly." 

Not a word about the eleven districts where there were no contests and no com- 
plaints ! Not a word about the seven districts where there were contests, and com- 
plaints filed, and the election set aside by the governor ! Not a word in regard to 
the specific number of districts to which the alleged invasion reached, and the 
number of councilmen and representatives whose elections were supposed to be 
eflfected by it ! The minority report is not burdened with such details as would 
convey to the mind of the reader a distinct idea of the real state of facts, from 
which the inference is attempted to be drawn that " Kansas had been conquered." 
In lieu of these facts, we have the vague, unfounded statement that in " most of the 
districts" frauds were prepetrated, which controlled the election of "a large majority 
of the members of both houses of the said assembly." 

" Most of the districts !" "A large majority of the members I" Do seven out 
of eighteen constitute most of the districts ? Do three councilmen out of thirteen, 
or nine out of twenty-six representatives, constitute a large majority ? These vague, 
unsupported declarations are interposed to break the force of a distinct statement 
of facts, the truth of which is sustained by the official records, and the correctness 
of which no man can with truth question or deny. 

The minority report continues thus : 

"On the returns of said election being made to the governor, protests and objections wera 
made to him in relation to a part of said districts ; and as to them, he set aside such, and 
such only, as by the returns appeared to be bad." 

What is the inference ? That the governor did not go behind the certificate, 
anci only set the election aside because the certificate on its face was " bad ?" Such 



10 

is not the fact. The governor did go behind the certificates — did inquire into the 
regularity of the proceedings, and the legality of the votes, as well as the form of 
the certificates. But it so happened that, there having been more or less illegal 
votes cast in these seven districts, the judges refused to certify in the form prescribed 
in the governor's proclamation, and verify the same by their oaths. 

In each of the other eleven districts, where the proceedings had been fair and 
regular, the judges did make their returns in due form, and, no protests being filed, 
no allegations of fraud or illegal voting being made, the governor granted certificates, 
as a matter of course, to the persons who had received the highest number of legal 
votes. This was the reason why, in every case where there had been illegal voting 
or unfairness in the elections, there were omissions or defects on the face of the 
returns, showing that the judges appointed by Governor Reeder would not certify 
and verify the certificates by their oaths thafthey were all legal voters when such 
was not the fact. This accounts for the coincidence that in each case where there 
were protests or allegations of fraudulent or illegal voting filed, there appeared 
such defects or omissions on the face of the returns made by the judges as raised 
the presumption that the allegations were in some degree true. But it does not 
by any means follow, nor is it the fact, as intimated, although not directly stated, 
in the minority report, that the governor did not go behind the returns, but confined 
his action to the defects and omissions apparent on their face. 

The fact that the governor did go behind the returns, and investigate the legality 
of the proceedings at the polls, is distinctly stated in the report of the minority of 
the committee on credentials in the Kansas legislature ; and the evidence of this 
fact is set forth in my report from the Committee on Territories. Hence the inti- 
mation in the minority report, that Governor Reeder acted only upon what appeared 
on the face of the returns, and did not decide upon the legality of the elections, is 
not only unsupported by testimony, but expressly contradicted by the record. 
Unwilling, however, to rely upon the assumption that seven out of eighteen constitute 
" most of the districts," and that the governor did not venture to go behind the 
returns to investigate fraudulent voting, the minority' report proceeds to assign 
reasons why there were no protests aad allegations of illegal voting in the other 
seven districts. 

In continuation of what I last read, it says : 

"In relation to others, covering, in all, a majority of the two houses, equally vicious in fact, 
but apparently good by formal returns, the inhabitants thereof, borne down by said violence 
and intimidation, scattered and discouraged, and laboring under apprehensions of personal 
violence, refrained and desisted from presenting any protest to the governor in relation there- 
to ; and he, then uninformed in relation thereto, issued certificates to the members who appeared 
by said formal returns to have been elected." 

Here the statement is, that in the other eleven districts, where there were no pro- 
tests alleging fraudulent voting, where no ten men could be found to sign one, 
where no one man could be found to swear to one, the people were so intimidated, 
and so thoroughly conquered and subjugated, that they dared not protest. Is this 
assumption sustained or justified by the history of the transaction ? What portion 
of the Territory was reached by this influx of voters from Missouri ? How far did 
they penetrate ? What places formed the principal theatres of their operations ? 
Were they not Leavenworth and Lawrence, and the precincts between them and 
in their vicinity ? Yet at those very places, where the largest number of illegal 
votes were polled, where the scenes of violence and intimidation are chiefly located, 
protests were filed and allegations of fraudulent voting made, and the elections set 
aside, and new elections ordered by the governor, upon the ground that in those 
seven districts there was reason to apprehend that the voice of the bona fide 
inhabitants and legal voters of the Territory had not been freely and fairly ex- 
pressed at the election. If at Lawrence and Leavenworth, and those points where 
t is alleged that the invaders mads their most effectual etibrts, the people were not 



11 

intimidated, and through fear prevented from protesting against these lawless pro- 
ceedings, and contesting the election in consequence of them, what reason is there 
to suppose that the people were so completely conquered and subjugated that they 
dare not protest against their wrongs, and petition for redress of their grievances, 
in other districts remote from the scenes of trouble, to which the intruders did not 
penetrate to any considerable numbers, if at all, and where the governor did not 
learn that there had been any unfairness in the elections until he was removed from 
office by the President, more than four months afterwards ? The minority report 
says that the governor, being " UxVinformed in relation thereto, issued certificates 
to the members luho appeared hy said formal returns to have been elected^ The 
inference is, that if the governor had been informed in relation to this pretended 
invasion into those eleven districts he would not have issued the certificates. 

From this it appears that the governor did consider himself authorized to go be- 
hind the " said formal returns," and investigate the legal qualifications of the voters 
and the fairness of the proceedings ; and that he would have done so in those eleven 
districts had he known or been informed that the alleged invasion had extended 
from the other seven districts into those eleven. But, imfortunately, the governor 
was " uninformed in relation thereto" at the time he canvassed the votes and issued 
the certificates ! Certainly the communication was not cut oflF between the gover- 
nor and those districts. The highways were open; people were allowed to pass 
and repass ; for we are informed that the returns had at that time been duly made 
to the governor by the judges of the election in every one of those districts. 
How and by whom were the '' said formal returns" duly made ? The governor's 
proclamation, under which the election was held, expressly provided that "one copy 
of the oath, list of voters, tally -list, and return, shall be taken by one of the judges, 
who shall deliver the same in person to the governor!''' According to the minority 
report, the judges whom Governor Reeder selected to conduct the election saw 
" large bodies of armed men from the State of Missouri" appear at the polls in most 
of the districts; saw them "ov^erawe the defenceless inhabitants, and by their own 
votes elect a large majority of the members of bolh houses of said assembly" (the 
legislature ;) saw the inhabitants "borne down by said violence and intimidation" — 
and that, after witnessing all these appalling scenes, these same judges wrote out 
and signed a return, in v/hich they stated that the election had been fairly and hon- 
estly conducted, and that the said return contained a true statement of the votes 
"polled by lawful voters;" and that these judges then verified the truth of the re- 
turn by their own oaths, and then delivered tne same to the governor in person, 
without communicating to him the fact that the Territory had been thus invaded ; 
and that the governor, being " uninformed in relation thereto," issued the certificates 
to the men thus fraudulently elected, under the supposition that the election had 
been fairly and honestly conducted in all of those eleven districts. The Senate and 
the country are asked to believe this incredible story, on the authority of the mi- 
nority, signed by one member of the committee out of six, unsupported by a single 
fact, and without a particle of evidence to sustain it or impart plausibility to it. 
Before Governor Reeder can believe the story, he must convict each one of the 
judges, whom he selected and appointed to conduct the election, of perjury in swear- 
ing to the truth of the returns. Were not the judges honest and impartial men? 
Did not Governor Reeder beheve them to be such when he appointed them ? When 
did he first make the discovery that each one of them had betrayed his trust and 
violated his oath ? Is it not amazing that in the selection of thirty-three men to 
conduct the election in those eleven districts, the governor should not have been 
able to find one honest man, who feared God and loved his country enough to re- 
frain from committing perjury by swearing to false returns, and inform the governor 
that his own Territory had been overrun and subjugated, and its elections controlled, 
by an invading army from a foreign State, and that the people were so much in- 
timidated and fiightened that they dare not protest against the outrage, or petition 
for the redress of their grievances, or even tell their own chief magistrate how great 



12 

a calamity had befallen them while he remained wholly " uninformed in relation 
thereto." 

Kansas conquered and subjugated, and that too without the knowledge of the 
governor ! The polls seized and elections controlled by large bodies of armed men 
from Missouri, and the judges concealed the fact from the governor who appointed 
them ! The people "borne down by said violence and intimidation," " scattered 
and discouraged," and filled with "apprehensions of personal violence" to such an 
extent that they did not dare to whisper into the ears of their favorite but " unin- 
formed" governor the sad tale of their overwhelming calamities ! How long did this 
reign of terror last? When did Governor Reeder become "informed in relation 
thereto?" How, when, by whom, and on what evidence, were these startling facts 
brought to the knowledge of his excellency ? If he did not know the facts on the 
fifth of April, when he issued the certificates of election, had he ascertained them on 
the seventeenth of the same month, when he published his proclamation command- 
ing each one of these "fraudulent members" to assemble and organize "a spurious 
legislature" at Pawnee City on the second day of July ? Had be become informed 
of the facts when, more than three months after the election, he sent his first mes- 
sage to this" spurious legislature," and invoked the richest blessings of Divine Provi- 
dence upon them while engaged in the performance of their high and patriotic 
duties t Had he heard of the alarming fact that " Kansas had been conquered" 
when he recommended to the legislature, thus elected and organized, to pass laws for 
the government of the people of Kansas upon the subject of education, and revenue, 
and taxation, and courts, and elections, and the militia, and, in short, upon all right- 
ful subjects of legislation ? Had he heard of the " conquest" when he vetoed the act 
of the legislature removing the seat of government temporarily from Pawnee City, and 
assigned, among other reasons, that it would occasion " a loss of time, the more 
valuable because their sessions were limited by the organic law of the Territory ?" 
"Who can conceive the extent of the evils resulting from the loss of ten days' time 
by a spurious legislature, which was forced on the people by an invading array from 
a foreign State ? Was he " uninformed" of the facts when, on the 21st of July, he 
dissolved his ofiicial relations with the legislature solely xi-pon the ground that they 
were assembled at the lurong place^ and reminded them that if "our Territory shall 
derive no fruits from the meeting of the present legislative assembly," he had called 
their attention to the point that they had no right to adjourn their session from 
Pawnee City to Shawnee Mission ? If " our Territory shall derive no fruits from the 
meeting of the present legislature," says the governor, "the res2)onsibility rests not 
on the executive!" What "fruits" did he desire the Territory to derive from the 
spurious legislature ? The governor must have been " uninformed" in relation to 
the alleged invasion when he uttered these lamentations over the loss of the fruit* 
which he expected the Territory to gather fi'om the action of this legislature. Had 
he become "informed in relation thereto," when, on the 16th of August, he ad- 
dressed his last communication "to the honorable the members of the council 

AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TERRITORY OF KaKSAS," notifying them 

of his removal from the office of governor by the President of the United States? 
In that communication, which was his last official act as governor of the Territory, 
he repeated the opinion expressed in his message of the 21st of July : " that I was 
unable to convince myself of the legality of your session at this place, for the 
reasons then given," The " reasons then given" were, that the legislature was in 
session at the wrong place — to wit: at Shawnee Mission instead of Pawnee City. 
These were the only reasons which he ever assigned for believing that the acts of 
that legislature were not valid and binding on the people of Kansas. Up to that 
period of time — vehich was nearly five months after the alleged conquest — it does 
not appear that Governor Pteeder had ever conceived the idea that the two houses 
of the legislature had not been fairly and honestly elected by the lawful voters and 
actual inhabitants of the Territory. Was he at that time " uninformed" in rela- 
tion to the conquest of the Territory five months previous by an invading army? 



13 

Had he never heard, during all that time, that the "Territory had been overrun by 
large bodies of armed men from Missouri;" that "Kansas had been subjugated ;" 
that "the inhabitants had been borne down by violence and intimidation;" that 
terror reigned everywhere in the Territory ; and that the people were so much 
alarmed that they dare not tell the horrible tale of their multiplied wrongs! In 
fairness and justice to Governor Reeder, we are bound to believe that during the 
whole of that period he had never heard a whisper of any of these things, other- 
wise he would have taken prompt and energetic steps "to see that the laws were 
faithfully executed!" Having remained " uninformed" in relation to the invasion 
for five months after it is alleged to have happened, it becomes important to know 
when, how, from whom, and upoa what evidence, he subsequently learned the great 
fact that Kansas had been conquered. My colleague [Mr. Trumbull] says: 

" The great fact remains, and is not met by the report, that the people of Kansas have beea 
conquered, ae the gorernor himself once said, and a legislature has been imposed on them bj 
Tiolence." 

Thus we find that the governor is the authority cited and relied upon to prove this 
great " fact." How does he know it ? We have already seen that he did not witnesi 
it; that he has no personal knowledge upon the subject; that he never heard of it 
for five months after it happened! Who informed him! Where is the testimony 
upon which his statement is founded ? It is not to be found in the minority report. 
It was not communicated to the Committee on Territories. It does not exist in 
any authentic form, or in any form except the naked, unsupported statement in 
my colleague's speech. He says that this " great fact remains, and is not met by 
the report " of the Committee on Territories, but, on the contrary, is " demurred 
to and thereby admitted." Permit me to tell my colleague that this great fact is 
met in the report, and denied, and disproved incontrovertibly by the public recordi 
and official acts and messages of the same governor upon whose vague and unsup- 
ported allegation he now ventures to make the charge. Governor Reeder cannot 
make such a statement without stultifying himself I He is not a competent wit- 
ness to impeach the public records of his own official acts by avering the existence 
of a state of facts of which he has no personal knowledge, and in regard to which 
he is admitted to have remained "uninformed" for nearly five months after they 
are alleged to have occurred. This unsatisfactory and unreliable statement, which 
has been attributed to the governor for the purpose of proving that " the people of 
Kansas were conquered," and " a legislature imposed upon them by violence," can 
receive no additional force or credit in consequence of having been endorsed by 
my colleague, [Mr. Trumdull,] and the senator from New York, [Mr. Skward,} 
and the senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] and the author of the minor- 
ity report, [Mr. Collamer,] and the other champions of the black-republican 
party. They have no personal knowledge of the facts, and have no mo^al right to 
manufacture testimony for political purposes by endorsing unfounded statement* 
the truth of which is disproved by all the evidence before the committee. 

But, sir, since the opposition have determined to rest their whole case upon the 
assumption that Kansas was conquered, and that a legislature was forced on the 
;people by violence, I desire to follow the history of the transaction into the legis- 
lature of the Territory, and see what position each party there assumed, and what 
proceedings were had. Immediately after the organization of the two houses and 
the reception of the governor's message, a resolution was adopted by the house of 
representatives authorizing any person who desired to do so to contest the right of 
any member holding a seat in that body upon giving notice to the sitting member. 
'This resolution was a direct invitation to all men who believed thai Kansas had 
heen conquered, or that there had been fraud and violence in the elections, or that 
the result had been controlled by illegal votes, to come forward and state the facts 
and provi) their allegations. 

If it were true, ai alleged in the minority report, that the people had been in- 
timidated and deterred from filing protests and making proof to the governor on 



14 

the Stli of April, one would suppose that suflScient time had elapsed to enable 
them to recover from their fright and induce them to appear before the legislature 
and vindicate their rights. That they vi^ere not deterred from appearing by appre- 
hensions of personal violence is apparent from the fact that the seats of several 
members were contested, a committee appointed, testimony received, and two 
reports made to the house — one signed by four and the other by one member of 
the committee. The majority report says, that, "having heard and examined 

ALL THE EVIDENCE TOUCHING THE MATTER OF INQUIRY BEFORE THEM," they find 

that the seats of fifteen of the twenty-two members who were present remain un- 
contested, no person appearing to deny or ques^on the fairness of their elections, 
or the regularity and truthftdness of the returns. Hence these fifteen representa- 
tives were permitted to retain their seats by unanimous consent; no one of the 
seven free-soil members who then held seats in the house interposing any objection 
to any one of these fifteen members. Thus it appears from the official records 
and journals that it was universally conceded at that time, by men of all parties, 
that a majority of the members of the legislature had been fairly and duly elected 
by the legal voters of the Territory. That majority, thus elected, constituted a 
legal quorum of both houses, according to the organic act of the Territory. It 
does not appear that there was any pretence at that time that Kansas had been 
conquered, and that a legislature had been imposed on the people by violence. 
The contest was confined to the seven disputed districts, both parties admitting 
and conceding that the elections and returns had been fairly and legally held and 
regularly made in the other eleven districts. The free-soil members of the legisla- 
ture contended that Governor Reeder had decided fairly and correctly when he 
awarded, on the 5th of April, certificates to the seventeen members whom he 
adjudged to have been duly elected, and set aside the returns and ordered new 
elections for the other nine representatives; and that the governor's decision loas 
FINAL and CONCLUSIVE in vcspect to the right of every member holding his certifi- 
cate to RETAIN HIS SEAT. 

The minority report of the committee on credentials in the legislature argued at 
length to prove that the legislature could not go behind the governor's certificate, 
and inquire into the fairness and legality of the election, or whether there had 
been a previous election, or any other matter or thing which would invalidate the 
right of the sitting member under the governor's certificate. When the House 
overruled this position, and vacated the seats of those members who claimed under 
' the second election held on the 24th of May, four of them signed a protest against 
the decision, and had it spread on the journal. In that protest they did not pre- 
tend that the legislature was a spurious body, imposed on the people of Kansas by 
violence ; they did not pretend that, outside of the seven disputed districts, any 
members had been elected by illegal votes ; they did not question the fact that a 
large majority of the members in each house had been fairly elected by lawful 
votes. The only point they made was, that the certificate of the governor was 
conclusive evidence of their right to their seats, and that, for that reason, the legis- 
lature had no authority to turn them out ! Like the governor, they had never 
heard that Kansas had been- conquered, tbat terror reigned, that the inhabitants 
were scattered and discouraged, and that the people were so much alarmed that 
they dare not tell the sad tale of their wrongs ! Although, according to the speech 
of my colleague and the minority report, these wild and terrific scenes had pre- 
vailed in every portion of the Territory for more than three long months, and 
although consternation and alarm filled every breast and silenced every tongue, all 
the free-soil members of the legislature, together with the governor, remained 
wholly " uninformed in relation thereto,"" not dreaming of the crimes that had 
been perpetrated and the wrongs that had been endured until several days after 
they were all turned out of office ! 

No sooner weie their offices gone than they were aroused from their fatal lethargy 
and false security. Floods of light poured in upon their unconscious minds; their 



15 

eyes were opened, and their hearts swelled with patriotic indignation, when, for the 
first time, they discovered that four mouths previous " Kansas had been conquered ;" 
that " a legislature had been forced upon the people by violence ;" that the "in- 
habitants were scattered and discouraged," and so thoroughly subdued that they 
dare not assert their rights or proclaim their wrongs ! The time had now arrived 
for brave men, with strong arms and stout hearts, and patriotic purposes, to step 
forward and rescue their beloved Territory from the oppressors' grasp ! Hence 
notices were promptly printed and scattered in every direction, over the sig-nature 
of " Many Voters," calling upon the people to assemble in mass meeting at the 
city of Lawrence, on the 14th of August, to take into consideration their perilous 
and oppressed condition ! This was the first movement in that series of acts which 
resulted in the attempt to put in operation a State government in hostility to the 
Territorial government established by Congress, and in defiance of the federal 
authorities ! Upon this point the minority report discourses as follows : 

" The people of Kansas, thus inraded, subdued, oppressed, and insulted, seeing their terri- 
torial government (such only in form) perverted into an engine to crush them in the dust, 
and to defeat and destroy the professed object of their organic law, by depriving them of the 
^perfect freedom ' therein provided ; and finding no ground^to hope for rights in that organizar- 
tion, they proceeded, under the guarantee of the United States constitution, 'peaceably to 
assemble to petition the. government for the redress of (their) grievances.' They saw no 
earthly source of relief but in the formation of a State gOTernment by the people, and the 
acceptance and ratification thereof by Congress." 

Now, is it true that they assembled under that clause of the constitution which 
authorizes citizens peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of 
grievances? Is it true that they ever professed to assemble for any such* purpose ? 
Is any such purpose expressed in any resolution, address, proclamation, or any 
other publication emanating from a^j of their meetings and conventions ? It 
cannot be found in the proceedings of the Lawrence meeting, nor of the Big 
Springs coiivention, nor of the first convention at Topeka, nor of the second con- 
vention at Topeka which formed their constitution, nor anywhere else except in 
the minority report of the Committee on Territories. I will explain to the Senate 
when and where this idea originated of justifying the revolutionary movements in 
Kansas under that clause of the constitution of the United States which secures to 
the people the right " peaceably to assemble to petition the government for redress 
of grievances." The Committee on Territories, in investigating this subject, had 
occasion to look into the opinion of Mr. Attorney General B. F. Butler in the Ar- 
kansas case, in v/hich it was held that, while the inhabitants of a Territory had no 
right to take any step or do any act designed or calculated to subvert or supersede 
the existing territorial government, without the previous assent and airthority of 
Congress, yet they might, under that clause of the constitution relating to the "re- 
dress of grievances," peaceably assemble and sign a (petition, and accompany it 
with a written constitution, as a part of their petition for authority to form a State 
government : " Provided, always, that such measures he commenced and prosecuted 
in a j^eaceable manner, 1^ STRICT subordination to the existing territopial 
GOVERNMENT, and in entire suhserviency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, 
or disregard them, at their ^^Zcaswre." The fertile genius of the author of the 
minority report discovered that a plausible excuse for the revolutionists in Kansas 
could be derived from one portion of this opinion of Attorney General Butler, by 
making them assume the loyal devotion of humble petitioners for the redress of 
grievances, while conceahng the fact that the whole movement has been prosecuted 
thus far in open defiance of the authority of Congress, for the avowed purpose of 
subverting the existing territorial government. Whether the daring and defiant 
revolutionists of Kansas will consent to be thus transformed by the single stroke of 
the pen into humble and suppliant petitioners remains to be seen. They will 
doubtless be amused as well as surprised when they shall learn from the minority 
report that they assembled only for the purpose of petitioning for the redress of 



16 

grievances, and that all their proceedings were conditional upon " the acceptance 
and ratification thereof by Congress." Lat us look into their proceedings and see 
■whether this is a fair or veritable statement of their scope and design. Their first 
meeting was held at Lawrence on the 14th of August, at which a preamble and 
resolution were adopted, calling a convention at Topeka on the 19th of September. 
Tha preamble was in thesu words : 

" Whereas the people of Kansas Territorj hare been since its gettlement, and now are, 
without anj law-making power," Ac 

Thus it appears that they started with the assumption that the people of Kan- 
sas were then " without any law-making power," notwithstanding the territoria 
legislature established by Congress was actually in session making laws on that 
very day. We next find them assembled in convention at Big Springs, on the 5th 
and 6th of September, when Governor Reeder was nominated for Congress, and 
resolutions were adopted repudiating the validity and authority of the territorial 
government. 

In the following resolution they approve of the proceedings of the Lawrence 
meeting, for the reason that they repudiate the acta and authority of the territorial 
government established by Congress : 

'Resolved, That this convention, in Tiew of its recent repudiation of theacti of the so-called 
Kansas legislative assemblj, respond most heartilj to the call made bj the people's con- 
rentioQ of the 14th ultimo for a delegate convention of the people of Kansas, to be held at 
Topeka on the 19th instant, to consider the propriety of the formation of a State constitution, 
and such matters as maj legitimatelj come before it." 

Does this look like peaceably assembling to petition government for the redress 
of grievances ? What humble petitioners ! Approve and endorse the Lawrence 
meeting of the 14th for the reason that it repudiated the action and authority of 
the government which Congress had established for the Territory ! The Lawrence 
meeting was local, being composed of the inhabitants of the town and immediate 
vicinity. The Big Springs meeting was a convention composed of delegates from, 
every portion of the Territory. Thus, the movement became general, and reached 
every county and district in the Territory. 

But let us pursue the inquiry whether this movement did proceed upon the idea,, 
and keep within the rule laid down by Attorney General Butler in regard to peti- 
tioning for redress of grievances, "in strict subordination to ike existing territorials 
ffovernment." 

Here is another resolution adopted by the Big Springs convention :. 

" Resolved, That we owe no allegiance or obedience to the tyrannical enactments of this 
spurious legislature; that their laws have no validity or binding force upon the people of 
Kansas ; and that every freeman among us is at full liberty, consistently with his obligations 
aa a citizen and a man, to defy and resist them if he choose so to do." 

This is the first allegation I have been able to find that the legislature was a 
" spurious assemblage !" " Owe no allegiance !" — no " obedience to the tyrannical 
enactments !" The "laws have no validity !" — no " binding force on the peop'e of 
Kansas!" Every freeman at liberty "to defy and resist them!" Is this what is 
meant by the sacred right of petition ? Is this what the minority report means 
when it asserts the right of the people " peaceably to assemble and petition the 
government for the redress of grievances ?" 

The next resolution points out the mode in which these humble petitioners pro- 
pose to redress their grievances. It is in these words : 

** Resolved, That we will endure and submit to these laws no longer than the best interests 
of the Territory require, as the least of two evils, and will resist them to a bloody issue as 
soon as we ascertain that peaceable remedies shall fail, and forcible resistance shall furnish 
any reasonable prospect of success ; and that, in the mean time, we recommend to our friends 
throughout the Territory, the organization and decipline of volunteer companies, and the 
jHTOCHrement and preparation of arms.'' 



17 

They -will submit only until " peaceable remedies shall fail !" What are these 
peaceable remedies ? Fortunately we are not left to conjecture to ascertain. They 
are clearly defined by Governor Reeder, in a speech before the same conyentiou 
which passed these resolutions, to be " an appeal to the courts, to the ballot-box, 
and to Congress." But suppose the courts sustain the validity of the laws, and the 
people sustain the legislature, and Congress refuses to overrule the people, what 
then * Governor Reeder has anticipated all these contingences in the same speech, 
and clearly indicated the course to be pursued in that event. I will let him speak 
m his own forcible language. He says : 

"But if, at last, all these should fail — if, in ths proper tribunals, there is no hope for our 
dearest rights, outraged and profaned — if we are still to suffer, that corrupt men may reap 
harvest* watered by our tears — then there is one more chance for justice. God has proTided, 
in the eternal frame of things, redress for every wrong; and there remains to us still the steady 
tye and tha strong arm, and we must conquer, or mingle the bodies of the oppressors with thoso of 
Hit oppressed upon the soil which the Declaration of Independence no longer protects!* 

Is this what the minority report calls " peaceably assembling to petition govern- 
ment for redress of grievances ?" Does this sustain the declaration in the minority 
report that their action was all conditional, dependent upon '■'■ the acceptance and 
ratification hy CongressV The whole argument of the minority report for the 
vindication of these revolutionary movements in Kansas rests solely upon these two 
propositions, which are directly and undeniably contradicted by the whole current 
of their proceedings. It was in the event that redress could not be had " in the 
PROPKR tribunals" that Governor Reeder proposed to have recourse to " the steady 
eye and the strong arm," and " to mingle the bodies of the oppressors with those 
of the oppressed upon the soil which the Declaration of Independence no longer 
protects !" It was in the same event, and dependent upon the same contingences, 
that the convention at Big Springs, professing to represent every county in the Ter- 
ritory, resolved that they would " resist them [the laws] to a bloody issue ! !" 
I'ut having no faith in the legality of their own proceedings, and consequently no 
hope of success " in the proper tribunals," they advised their friends not to wait for 
the decision, but "m the meantime^'' to organize and decipline military companies, 
and to provide arms and munitions of war ! Does the minority report reft^r to the 
organization and decipline of these volunteer companies, and to their " procurement 
and preparation of arms," when it speaks of their having assembled peaceably to 
petition for redress of grievances ? 

In view of these facts, I submit the question to the Senate and the country, with 
what show of fairness or truth does the minority report pretend that these proceed- 
ings in Kansas were had under that clause of the constitution which secures to the 
people the right " peaceably to assemble and petition government for redress of 
grievances," and that they were all conditional, dependent upon "their acceptance 
and ratification by Congress ?" It must not be said that these facts were not knowu 
to the minority when the report was prepared. There were several pamphlet copies- 
of thtse proceedings before the committee for more than three weeks before th« 
reports were made, and at least one of them in the hands of the author of tha 
minority report during all that time. The facts are all set forth in the majority 
report, and were read in open committee as a part of the report, in the presence of 
the author of the minority report, two days before either report was submitted to 
the Senate. Hence charity and courtesy require us to assume that the author of 
the minority report did not deem these facts material, and for that reason suppressed 
them, and, in consequence of their suppression, he was enabled to arrive at conclu- 
sions directly the reverse of those to which he would have been irresistibly driven if 
he had not suppressed them. 

In pursuance of the recommendation of these two conventions, the first at Law- 
rence, on tiie 14th of August, and the second at Big Springs, on the 5th and 6th 
of September, a Territorial convention was held at Topekaonthe 19th of Septem- 
ber, which provided for the election of delegates to another convention, to be held 



18 

at the same place on the fourth Tuesday of October, to form a constitution and 
State government. At an early stage of the proceeding3 of the constitutional 
convention, a Mr. Smith offered a resokition instructing the various committees to 
frame their work with reference to an immediate organization of a State govern- 
ment. This resolution put in issue the direct question whether their constitution 
and other proceedings should be conditional and dependent upon their acceptance 
and ratification by Congress, or whether they should be absolute and independent 
of Congress ? This proposition led to an elaborate discussion, and was at length 
adopted, and in substance incorporated into one of the articles of the constitution. 
A synopsis of this debate on both sides is set out in the majority report, from which 
it is apparent that the proposition was understood and decided then precisely as I 
state it now. Mr. Delahay, who has since been elected a member of Congress under 
that constitution, made an elaborate speech against the proposition, upon the ground 
that it was avowedly an '■'■act of rebellion" On the other hand, it was justified 
and defended as standing upon the same footing with the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, with the distinct avowals on the part of its advocates that they would not 
wait a day for the action of Congress, 

No man can read that debate and doubt that it was their fixed purpose to put a 
State government in operation in conflict with the existing Territorial government, 
and in defiance of the authority of Congress. The idea of acting in subordination 
to the constituted authorities was scouted. The party which wished to remain loyal 
to the existing government, until superseded by lawful means, was defeated, and the 
revolutionists carried everything their own way. The constitution was adopted ; the 
election for State officers and legislature has taken place, and the government put 
in operation on the 4th of this month, without the consent of Congress, and in 
defiance of the constituted authorities in the Territory. 

These fects are all set forth in the majority report — while the minority report 
passes over in silence the debates a\id proceedings of the convention which formed 
the constitution at Topeka, and the Big Springs convention, and all other acts 
which give the real character to the movement — and show it to be a case of open 
and undisguised rebellion. The minority does not question, much less disprove, 
the truth of any fact stated in the majority report, nor does it produce any new 
or additional evidence which would qualify or change the character of the revolu- 
tionary movement as presented in the majority report. The distinguishing feature 
of the minority report is, that it suppresses a large portion of the material facts, 
and, in consequence of that omission, is enabled to arrive at conclusions which 
would have been utterly impossible had all the facts been truly and fairly pre- 
sented. While the minority report distinctly states that the whole movement in 
Kansas was nothing more than " peaceably to assemble and petition government 
for the redress of grievances," and that their action was conditional upon " the 
acceptance and ratification by Congress," there are some passages which betray 
doubts of the correctness of this position. For instance : 

"Whatever views iiidividnal3 may at times, or in meetings, have expressed, and whatever 
ultimate determination ma.j have been entertained in the result of being spurned by Congress 
and refused redress, is now entirely immaterial. That cannot condemn or give character to 
the proceedings thus tar pursued." 

" Immaterial " as to the object of the assembly ! Why, sir, its character de- 
pends on its object — the motive and the ultimate design give character to the 
transaction. Is it immaterial whether they assembled peaceably to petition for 
redress of grievances or to oi'ganize and mature a plan of rebellion against the 
United States? Is it immaterial whether the plan contemplated submission or 
resistance to the auLliority of Congress in case of an adverse decision upon their 
application for admission into the Union ? The mere statement that " whatever 
ultimate determination may have been entertained in the event of being spurned 
by Congress and refused redress is now entirely immaterial " betrays a conscious- 
ness that there was an " ultimate determination" inconsistent with their loyalty 



19 

to the constitution and laws of the land. Why not state all the facts from which 
that "ultimate determination" clearly appears, instead of concealing it by sup- 
pressing the material facts which gave character to " the movement?" 
Again : 

" Thus far this effort of the people for redress is peaceful, constitutional, and right. 
Whether it will succeed rests with Congress to determine ; but clear it is that it should not 
be met and denounced as revolutionary, rebellious, insurrectionary, or unlawful, nor does it 
call for, or justify the exercise of, any force by any department of this government to check or 
control it." 

A movement should not be called "revolutionary " when its origin, progress, 
and aim consist in nothing but revolution! It should not be called "rebellious" 
when its authors, in an event certain to happen, avowed their " ultimate determi- 
nation " to be rebellion ! It should not be called " insurrectionary " when its first 
act, and each successive act, proclaimed violent resistance to the laws of the Terri- 
tory, even to " a bloody issue !" It should not be called " unlawful " when its 
avowed object was to overthrow by force the whole system of laws under which 
they lived ! Neither the government nor any department of it should use any 
force to " check or control" this revolutionary movement, even when the supremacy 
of the laws could be maintained in no other way ! Such are the conclusions of the 
minority report ! 

In reply to all of this, I have only to say that the majority of the committee 
are of the opinion that things should be called by their right names — that revolu- 
tion should be checked — that rebellion should be put down — that insurrection 
should be suppressed — and that the government should use with firm hand and 
steady nerve whatever force may be necessary to maintain the supremacy of the 
laws against .all organized resistance, from whatever quarter it may come. 

In this connexion it is worthy of remark that the particular acts of the legisla- 
ture which have been forcibly resisted, and for the violation of Avhich the prisoners 
have been rescued from the officers, are not the same laws that are represented as 
being barbarous and oppressive. Of the vast number of enactments aftecting 
almost every relation in life, and filling a volume of nearly one thousand pages, 
only two are complained of as being unjust and oppressive. These are the statutes 
in regard to elections and slaves. 

All of the others, so far as we have been informed, are entirely unobjeclionable, 
and well adapted to the promotion and protection of the best interests of society. 
The disturbances which have arisen in Kansas have no connexion with these two 
obnoxious laws. No prosecutions have been had under them ; no complaints have 
been made of their violation ; and hence no attempts have been made to enforce 
them. The outrages complained of are murder and arson, and breaches of the 
peace. Persons charged with these various crimes have been violently rescued 
from the custody of the officers of the law, by armed mobs, upon the pretext that 
the acts of the legislature providing for the punishment of persons guilty of these 
crimes against life, and property, and society, are invalid, and consequently the 
offenders are entitled to go free. I repeat, that in every instance where a collision 
has taken place between the officers of the law and the mob which rescued the 
prisoners, it was a case arising under the law against murder, or house-burning, or 
a breach of the peace ! la no one instance has the violence grown out of a case 
under the election law, or the slavery law ! And yet the moment the sherifT 
arrests a person on the charge of murder, or robbery, or arson, or breach of the 
peace, and a mob armed with Sharpe's rifles rescues the prisoner, and the sheriff 
summons a posse of good citizens to enforce the law, the action of the mob is 
justified upon the ground that the same legislature which passed the laws for the 
punishment of those crimes also passed two other laws upon the subject of elections 
. and slavery, M'hich the mob did not like, and their friends here think ought to be 
declared null and void ! Should the whole frame-work of society be destroyed and 
blotted out merely because it may contain a small portion of material which is not 



20 

entirely sound and acceptable ! Marriages have been solemnized, children have 
been born, deaths have occurred, estates have been distributed, contracts have been 
made, and rights have accrued, under the system of laws which the Kansas legis- 
lature have enacted, which it is not competent for Congress to divest and annul. 
Are you prepared to disturb and destroy all the social, domestic, and pecuniary re- 
lations and interests of the whole people of Kansas, merely because you do not lik« 
two acts of their legislature, which have remained a dead letter upon the statute 
book, if, indeed, they bear the construction which you seek to place upon them in 
order to render them odious ? For what purpose, and to what end, are all these 
calamities to be inflicted upon the people of Kansas ? Is it necessary that the 
whole body of white people shall suffer in order that the interests of the negro may 
be advanced ? How do you expect to promote the interests of the negro by annul- 
ling the whole system of laws enacted by the legislature of the Territory ? The 
constitution which your friends have formed at Topeka, under which the State 
government has recently been organized, and with which the senator from New 
York [Mr. Seward] proposes to admit the State into the \J nion, forbids the negro 
forever to enter the State ! You profess to be the especial friends of the negro ; 
your consciences are greatly disturbed lest he will not be well treated in Kansas ; 
and at the same time you are in favor of a proposition which denies to him forever 
the right to enter, live, or breathe, in the proposed State of Kansas I If the negro 
be free, you will not let him comj ! If he be a slave, you will not let him stay ! 
And yet you are so much aggrieved at his sad condition that you are willing to 
blot out and destrov the whole system of laws for the protection of white folks oa 
account of the injustice which you fear will be done to the poor negro 1 

Mr. President, there are a few other points which I wish to discuss briefly, if my 
voice and strength will permit me to continue. 

Mr. BUTLER. If the senator will give way I will move an adjournment. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am grateful to the senator for his kind proposition ; but my 
health is such that I fear I would not be able to speak to-morrow, after the exhaus- 
tion of to-day, if I should avail myself of his courtesy. I prefer, therefore, to finish 
now what I have to say, if possible. 

It has been my unpleasant duty thus far to trace the points of difference and con- 
flict between the two reports, and the conclusions to which they lead. I now ap- 
proach a material point, and invite the especial attention of the Senate and country 
to it, in which the majority and minority reports agree — I allude to the causes 

WHICH HAVE PRODUCED ALL OF THESE UNFORTUNATE DIFFICULTIES IN KaNSAS. 

We agree in ascribing them to the same general causes, although we difi'er widely 
in r<3gard to the remedies proper to be applied. We agree that they were the nat- 
ural and legitimate results of two rival and hostile systems of emigration, organized 
in and prosecuted from the opposite and extreme sections of the Union for the pur- 
pose of controlling the domestic institutions of the Territory — the one having for its 
paramount object the prohibition, and the other the protection, of the institution 
of slavery in Kansas. The proposition is thus stated in the majority report: 

" Combinations in one section of tbe Union to stimulate an unnatural and false system of 
emigration, with the view of controlling tbe elections, and forcing- tbe domestic institutions of 
the Territory to assimilate to those of the non-slaveholding States, were followed, as it might 
have been foreseen, by the use of similar means in the slaveholding States, to produce directly the 
opposite result. To these causes, and to these alone, in the opinion of your cormmittee, may- 
be traced the origin and progress of all the controversies and disturbances with which Kansas 
is now convulsed. 

"If these unfortunate troubles have resulted as natural consequences from unauthorized 
and improper schemes of foreign interference with the internal affairs and domestic concerns 
of the Territory, it is apparent that the remedy must be sought in a strict adherence to tha 
principles, and rigid enforcement of the provisions, of the organic law." 

The minority report, after justifying and applauding the movements and opera- 
tions of the Ma.=isachus8tts and New England emigrant aid societies, by sending 



21 

emigrants to Kansas for the purpose of controlling the elections and prohibiting 
slavery as a "lawful and laudable" experiment, and after commending and applaud- 
ing in like manner the counter movement in Missouri and the other slavcholding 
States as " a highly praiseworthy and commendable" effort, speaks thus of the con- 
sequences of the experiment of arraying the whole inhabitants of the Territory 
into two opposing and hostile parties, each struggling to defeat the other in the 
accomplishment of the object which brought them there: 

"It now becomes necessary to inquire what has in fact taken place. If violence has taken 
place as the natural, and perhaps unavoidable, consequence of the nature of the experiment, bring- 
ing into dangtrous contact and collision inflamahle elements, it was the voice of a mistaken law 
and immediate measures should be taken by Congress to correct such law. If force and vio- 
lence have been substituted for peaceful measures there, legal provisions should be made and 
executed to correct all the wrong such violence has produced, and to prevent their recurrence 
and thus secure a fair fulfilment of the experiment by peaceful means, as orginallj professed 
and presented in the law.'' 

Mr. COLLAMER. That word "experiment" I have used tliroughout as referring 
to the experiment of the law. 

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will show what it means. I will show that the word " ex- 
periment" is used to designate the operations of the emigrant aid societies of Mas- 
sachusetts and New England, and the counter movement which these emigrant aid 
societies drew after them by way of antagonism in the slaveholding States. I will 
now read other passages to show that I have stated the position of the minority fairlyl 

"This subject, then, which Congress has been unable to settle in any such way as the slave 
Sfcates will sustain, is now turned over to those who have or shall become inhabitants of 
Kansas to arrange ; and all men are invited to participate in the experiment, regardless of their 
character, political or religious views, or place of nativity." 

What experiment ? That of settling the slavery question by " those who have 
or shall become inhabitants of Kansas." In order to lay the foundation for justify- 
ing the New England emigrant aid societies for their participation in this expari- 
ment of foreign interference with the domestic affairs of a distant Territory, the 
minority report proceeds to justify all that has been done by Missouri and the other 
slaveholding States to counteract the efforts and defeat the designs of the New Eng- 
land aid societies, and to send persons there for ihe purpose of controlling the elec- 
tion, and making Kansas a slaveholding State. 

The minority report proceeds as follows: 

"Now. what is the right and the duty of the people of this country in relation to this matter ? 
Is it not the right of all who believe in the blessings of slaveholding, and regard it, as the best 
condition ofsociet}', either to go to Kansas as inhabitants, and by their votes to help settle this 
good condition of that Territory; or if they cannot so go and settle, is it not their duty, by 
all lawful means in their power, to promote this object by inducing others like-minded to go? 
This right becomes a duty to all who follow their convictions. All who regard an establish- 
ment of slavery in Kansas as best for that Territory, or as necessary to their own safety bj 
the political weight it gives in the national government, should use all lawful means to secure 
that result; and, clearly, the inducing men to go there to become permanent inhabitants and 
voters, and to vote as often as the elections occur in favor of the establishment of slavery, and 
thus core^roZ the elections, and preserve it a slave State forever, is neither unlawful nor cen- 
surable. It is and would be highly praiseworthy and commendable, because it is using law- 
ful means to carry forward honest convictions of public good. All lawfully associated 
efforts to that end is equally commendable. Nor will the apptication of approbrious epithets, 
and calling it propagandism, change its moral or legal character, from whatever quarter or 
source, official or otherwise, such epithets may come. Neither should they deter any man 
from peaceably performing his duty by following his honest convictions." 

Having said thus much in behalf of the "right" and "duty" of the Missourians 
to go into Kansas and control the elections for such a "highly praiseworthy and 
commendable" object as "the establishment of slavery" in the Territory, th© 
minority report proceeds in this wise to show that it was equally " praiseworthy 
and commendable" for the New England emigrant aid societies to send men 
there to " control the elections and prohibit slavery :" 

"On the other hand, all those who have seen and realized the blessings of universal liberty 
and believe that it can only be secured and promoted by the prohibition of domestic slavery. 



22 



di'radtg^sL^^rli" ^-^-r^ -^- --itode makes labar 

object bj^wful mean ^XLve^pe™htedbvKw''^^^^ exertions to advance this great 

sas was presented by law aran on^rSd L '^iJ^? their countrr. When, therefore, Kan- 
became the right and dutV of all Lch n rllllH'! ^^P^"«^^"t, and all were invited to enter, it 
their numbers^nd by thL votes ?aw^, Iv ^ ' t f ^°r'''' ^' inhabitants for the purpose, by 
legal way, the electio'n tS e ?or this oS { This cou ron/\''°i"' '^ .^'l ^^ ''''''''' ^^ ^ 
nent residence, and continued and rene-i^eH pff.rt T- T ^^ I^^fully effected by perma- 
government, a^d permanently emainTno ttre ?o foJr'.'!,!! '"' ^^^^'^^^^^ °f the territorial 
All those who entertained the sanie 4n?imPntVh5 ^ K'T'^^ ^ free-State constitution, 
the right and dutv to use al lawful m.^n^M ' ''^ ".''* <^''P°'*^^^ themselves to go, had 

pose could be best effected yun ted eSbvvoS '"^ ^'^-T'^ '''' °^J^^^- ^^ ^^^ P^'- 
State assistance, as proposed^n sim' southern St. tlf;f' associations or corporations, or by 

::£ fer r;Si5^- "=-?" -^-S^:^ 1^ -- 
uZ't:ff.;t„r;*^ :rsi,:e:s'-hiitr° r""^°'■''- 
Toidabl^Tovlofence? ^^•^-^-'^^S'-eut, l.ads natttrally, and perhaps^na^ 

Mr. COLLAMER. I did not say so. 
consh'u^So^^W^e* rloTV^lM^'t 'H ^f ^"^^^ "^'«^ ^^ sn^ce^me of no other 

Bature"r?ErexplJSrt,tiS JaJYutrd^^Se?^^^^ ^^^^--^ «^ ^^« 

ments, it was the vice of a mirHkeli l^w S"^.. ^ ? '* """^ collision inflammable de- 
gress to correct such kw.^ "I'-^l^ea law, and immediate measures should be taken by Con- 



23 

*• vice" was there in the Nebraska act ? The minority report answers the question 
It turned over the decision of tlie slavery question to the inhabitants of Kansas. Iti«;> 
contained the principle of seh'-government in ol)edienc8 to the constitution. It 
left the people free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way. This was all the vice of a mistaken law! It banished the question of slavery 
agitation from the halls of Congress, and turned it over to the people who were 
immediately interested in, responsible for, and had a right to control, the decision 
of the question. If that great principle of self-government which the minority 
report calls " the vice of a mistaken law" had been permitted to have fair play in 
Kansas, as it did in Nebraska, there would have been no mora trouble or violence 
in the one than in the other. In Nebraska, to which the emigrant aid societies 
did not extend their operations, and where emigration and settlement were left to 
flow in their natural channels, nothing has occurred to disturb the peace and quiet 
of the Territory. There this " vice of a mistaken law" produced peace and har- 
mony, instead of violence and conflict, as its nartural, and perhaps unavoidable, con- 
sequence. In Nebraska, where the principle of self-government was permitted to 
have fair play under the provisions of the same " mistaken law," but where " the 
experiment of bringing into dangerous contact and collision inflammable elements," 
the natural, and perhaps imavoidable, consequence of which was violence, was not 
deemed " highly praisevrorthy and commendable" — where it was not considered a 
"right" and a "duty" of the States in the two extreme sections of the Union to 
attempt to control the political destinies of a distant Territory, and with that view 
to array all the inhabitants into two great hostile parties, and force peaceable men 
into the ranks of the one or the other for protection — where foreign interference 
has yielded to the principle of non-intervention — the Kansas -Nebraska act has 
worked out its own vindication. It has shown, that while violence is the natural, 
and perhaps unavoidable, result of '■ the experiment" attempted by the emigrant 
aid societies to control the political destinies of the Territory by foreign interference 
and a spurious system of emigration, no such consequences do flow from the opera- 
tion of the principle of self-government, when, in the language of the Nebraska act, 
the '■'people are lefi perfectly free to form and recjulate their domestic institu- 
tions in their own loai/, subject only to the constitution of the United States/" 
Since, then, the "experiment" of foreign interference, by the confession of the 
minority report, has produced violence and bloodshed as its natural, and perhaps 
unavoidable, result, should not the remedy be sought in the abandonment of the 
experiment which caused the mischief, in rebuking and restraining foreign inter- 
ference, and false and fraudulent schemes for controlling the elections by non- 
residents, and maintaining firmly and impartially the true principles of non-inter- 
vention, by giving fair play to the great priacipb of self-government, in obedience 
to the constitution, as provided in the organic law of the Territory ? 

This brings us to the direct and distinct issue between the majority and minority 
reports — between the supporters and the opponents of the principles involved in 
the Kansas Nebraska act. The one afiirms the principles of non-intervention from 
without, and self-government within, the Territories, iu strict obedience to the con- 
stitution of the United States; while the other insists that the domestic aftairs and 
internal concerns of the Territories may be controlled by associations and corpora- 
tions from abroad, under the authority of the legislatures of the several States, or 
of Congress, as they may be able to gain the political ascendency over the one or 
the other. In the prosecution of this line of policy, the opponents of the principles 
involved in the Kansas-Nebraska act, having failed to accomplish their purposes in 
the halls of Congress and under the forms of the constitution, immediately or- 
ganized themselves into an emigrant aid association in this city, and through their 
friends and co-laborers obtained acLs of incorporation from the legislature of Massa- 
chusetts, with a capital of fiv^e millions of dollars in one instance, and one million 
of dollars in another, to enable them there to accomplish indirectly what they had 
found themselves unable to do by the action of Congress. With them it was a 



24 

great point gained, if, by an organized system of foreign interference, under color 
•f a legislative enactment, they could draw after it a counter movement in conflict 
with it, and thus produce violence and bloodshed as '• the natural, and perhaps 
mnavoidable, consequence of the experiment," and charge the odium of the whole 
■pon the Nebraska bill and its supporters, as a fulfilment of the predictions which' 
they had made and were resolved should be realized as political capital in the- 
approaching presidential election. They have succeeded by this system of foreign 
interference in producing violence, and bloodshed, and rebellion in Kansas ; and it 
now only remains to be seen whether the minority report shall be equally successful 
in convincing the people that " the natural, and perhaps unavoidable, consequences" 
©f their own action are justly chargeable to "the rice of a mistaken law," the 
principles and provisions of which were intended to be outraged and brought into 
disrepute by these very proceedings. When the time shall arrive, and I trust it is 
near at hand, that the cardinal principles of self-government, non-intervention, and 
Stata equality, shall be recognised as irrevocable rules of action, binding on all 
good citizens who regard, and are willing to obey, the constitution as the supreme 
law of the land, there will be an end of the slavery controversy in Congress and 
bet^veen the different sections of the Union. The occupation of political agitators,, 
whose hopes of position and promotion depend upon their capacity to disturb the 
peace of the country, will be gone. The controversy, if continued, will cease to b© 
a national one — will dwindle into a mere local question, and will affect those only 
who, by their residence in the particular State or Territory, are interested in it, and- 
kave the exclusive right to control it. What right has any State or Territory of 
this Union to pass any law or do any act with the view of controlling or changing 
the domestic institutions of any other State or Territory ? Do you not recognise. 
an imperative obligation resting on the United States to observe entire and perfect, 
neutrality towards all foreign States with which we are at peace, in respect to taeir 
domestic institutions and internal affairs ? Has that obligation any higher source 
of authority than that spirit of comity which all civilized nations acknowledge to- 
be binding on all friendly powers ? Are not the different parts of this Union com- 
posed of friendly powers ! Are they not all at peace with each other, and hence 
under an obligation to preserve a friendly forbearance and generoxjs comity quite? 
as sacred and imperative as that to whicli all foreign States, zt peace with each 
other, acknowledge their obligation to yield implicit obedience ? Have you not 
passed neutrality laws, and exerted the whole executive authority of the goveJiir 
ment, including the army and navy, to enforce them, in restraining our citizens, 
from interfering with the internal affairs of foreign States and their Territories!^ 
Are not the different States and Territories of this Union under the same obliga- 
tion towards each other 'i Indeed, does not the constitution of the United States- 
impose an additional and higher obligation than it is possible for the laws of nations 
to enjoin on foreign States ? How can we hope to preserve peace and fraternal 
feeling between the different portions of this Union unless we are willing to yield 
obedience to a principle so just in itself, so fair towards all, that no one can com- 
plain of its operation — a principle distinctly lecognised by all civilized countries 
as a fundamental article in the law of nations, for the reason that the peace of the 
world could not be preserved for a single day without its observance ? 

But the agents and champions of the emigrant aid societies, failing in their 
attempts to vindicate these mischievous schemes of foreign interference, endeavor 
to pallia<'e what cannot be justified on the plea that the slaveholdiug States have 
done the same thing for which they are arraigned ! Even if this were true, it worJd 
be difficult to prove that two wrongs make a right. But this excuse cannot avail 
the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company. That company was chartered and 
organized after the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed the Senate, and in anticipation of 
its passMge in the House. It preceded all counter-movements many months in 
point of time, and sent out several large bodies of emigrants before any steps were 
taken or opposing organizations were made to counteract the efiects of its opera- 



r^25 

lions. The agents sent out in charge of the fii-st bodies of emigrants in the sum- 
mer of 1854 report to the company, and the report was published in pamphlet by 
the secretary of the company, and widely circulated, that the people of Missouri 
received them kindly, and welcomed their arrival as friends ! The political designs 
and ultimate objects of the company were not openiy avowed by them until their 
numbers increased to such an extent as to give them a controlling power in many 
settlements immediately on the Missouri border. Then all disguise was throws 
aside and the purpose of the company openly avowed to abolitionize Kansas with 
the view of erecting a cordon of free States as a perpetual barrier against the 
fomaLion ar.d admission of any more slave States. The violence of their language 
against domestic slavery anywhere and everywhere created apprehensions in the 
miads of the people of Missouri that they also meditated a relentless warfare upon 
the institution of slavery within the limits of that State as a part of their ultimate 
plan of operations. In this connexion 1 will notice a remark of my colleague, in 
whii-ii be represents me as saying in the majority report that the New England 
Emigrant Aid Company did hitend to wage a relentltss warfare on the institutioa 
of slavery within the limits of the State of Missouri, and then demands the proof 
to sustain the truth of the assertion. His mode of defending his friends who hare 
linked their political fortunes with these emigrant aid societies is more ingenious 
than creditable. He cuts in two the sentence which he professes to quote entire, 
represents me as saying what I did not say, and then demands the proof to sustain 
the false issue which he has made for me. What the majority report did say oa 
this point is as follows : 

'• When the emigraats sent out bj the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Compauj, and their 
affiliated societies, passed through the State of Missouri in large number, on their waj te 
Kansas, the violence of their language, and the unmistakable indications of their determined 
hostility to the domestic institutions of that State, created apprehensions that the object of the 
company was to abolitionize Kansas as a means of prosecuting a relentless warfare upon the 
institutions of slavery within the limits of Missouri. These apprehensions increased and 
spreatJ with the progress of events, until they became the settled convictions of the people of 
that portion of the State most exposed to the danger by their proximity to the Kansas border. 
The natural consequence was, that immediate steps were taken by the people of the western 
counties of Missouri to stimulate, organize, and carry into effect a system of emigratioM 
similar to that of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company, for the avowed purpose ot 
counteracting the effects, and protecting themselres and their domestic institutions from the 
consequences, of that company's operations." 

The report does not say that these aid societies intended to make war on slavery 
within the State of Missouri. I made no such charge. My statement was that the 
conduct of the emigrants '• CREATED APPREHENSIONS that the object of the com- 
pany was to abolitionize Kansas as a means of prosecuting a relentless warfare upoa 
the institution of slavery within the limits of Missouri." Does my colleague take 
issue with this statement, as I made it, and as it reads in the report, and not as he 
chooses to make it for me ? Does he deny that the conduct of the emigrants pro- 
duced such an "apprehension" in the minds of the people of Missouri, and that in 
the progress of events this "apprehension" became "a settled conviction," under 
which they acted when they took steps to organize a counter-movement and avert 
the consequences which might be expected to result from the emigrant aid socie- 
ties' operations ? I will now adduce the testimony to prove that such was the case, 
to the end that it may not be questioned hereafter. A convention of delegates 
from all portions of the State of Missouri was held at Lexington, in that State, ia 
the month of July, 1855, to consider what measures were necessary to protect them- 
selves and their domestic institutions from the maehinations of the New England 
emigrant aid societies. At that meeting a preamble and resolutions were adopted, 
and a committee appointed to prepare and publish an address "to the people of the 
United States" expressive of the views of the people of Missouri touching tb« 
slavery question and Kansas difficulties : 

"Whereas this convention have observed a deliberate and apparently systematic effort oa 
the part of the several States of this Union to wags a war of extermination upon the institu- 



26 

tion of slavery as it exists under the constitution of the United States, and the several States, 
by legislative enactments annulling acts of Congress passed in pursuance of the constitution, 
and incorporating large moneyed associations to aholitionize Kansas, and through Kansas to 
vperate upon the contiguous States of Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas ; this convention, repre- 
senting that portion of Missouri more immediately affected by these movements, deem it 
proper to make known their opinions and purposes, and what they believe to be the opinions 
and purposes of the whole State, and to this end, have agreed to the following resolutions:" 

This preamble shows conclusively that the Missourians did labor under the im- 
pressions, and act under the apprehensions and convictions, stated in the majority 
report. The resolutions unanimously adopted by the same convention show with 
equal clearness that the people of Missouri were opposed to the whole scheme of 
foreign interference with the affairs of the Territory, and were in favor of leaving 
to the actual bona fide inhabitants of the Territory the right to decide the slavery 
question for themselves, unmolested by intrusions from any quarter; and that they 
only adopted the counter-movement to the New England emigrant aid societies 
in what they believed to be necessary self-defence. I will now read a portion of 
the resolutions: 

" Resolved, That the incorporation of moneyed associations, under the patronage of sov- 
ereign States of this Union, for the avowed purpose of recruiting and colonizing large 
armies of abolitionists upon the Territory of Kansas, and for the avowed purpose of destroy- 
ing the value and existence of slave propert}' now in that Territory, in despite of the wishes 
oit\i%hona fide independent settlers thereof, and for the purpose, equally plain and obvious, 
whether avowed or not, of ultimately abolishing slavery in Missouri, is a species of legislation 
and a mode of emigration unprecedented in our history, and is an attempt, by Slate legislation, in- 
directly to thicart the purposes of a constitutional and equitable enactment of Congress, by which 

THE DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE TeURITORIES WERE DESIGNED TO BE LEFT TO THE EXCLUSIVE 
llANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE BONA FIDE SETTLERS THEREOF." 

•' Resolved, That we disclaim all right and any intent to interfere with the bona fide in- 
dependent settlers in the Territory of Kansas, from whatever c^uarter they may come, or what- 
ever opinions they may entertain ; but we maintain the right to protect ourselves and our^ 
property against all unjust and unconstitutional aggression, present or prospective, im- 
mediate or threatened; and we do not hold it necessary or expedient to wait until the torch 
is applied to our dwellings, or the knife to our throats, before Ave take measures for our 
security and the security of our firesides." 

-, The address which accompanies the series of I'esolutious from which I have 
read these tv/o is written with great clearness and ability, and in a spirit of concil- 
iation and patriotic devotion to the constitution and the Union. I had marked 
copious extracts which I intended to read to the Senate, but will refrain, except to 
a limited extent, for the want of time, ajid in consequence of the too great length 
to which my remarks have already been extended. It condemns in strong nnd 
unequivocal terms the whole system of foreign interference with the internal con- 
cerns and domestic afiaiis of the Territory as "a scheme never before heard of or 
thought of in this country, theobject and etfect of which was to evade the princi- 
ple of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and, in lieu of non-inter vtntion by Conr/ress^ to 
substitute active intervention by the StatesT 

It arraigns the Massachusetts Aid Company as "a scheme totally at variance 
with the genius of our government, both State and federal, and with the social in- 
stitutions which these governments were designed to protect, and its success would 
have been as fatal to those who contrived it as it could have been to those intended 
to be its victims." 

It alleges that "no slaveholding State has ever attempted to colonize a Terri- 
tory," but has always left the public lands "to occupancy of such settlers as soil and 
climate invited." It argues that if Massachusetts, by her legislation, has a right to 
send an army of abolitionists into Kansas for the purpose of controllii-igiob uorneitic 
institutions, she would have an equf^l right to send them into Missouri for a like 
purpose ; that South Carolina would have the same right to send an army of slave- 
holders to Delaware or Iowa; that "there is no difference in principle between the 
cases supposed ;" that "if justifiable and legal in the one, it is equally so in the other;" 
that " ta(-y differ only in point of practicability and expediency ;" that " fho one 
would be an outrage, easily perceived, promptly met, and speedily repelled ;" that 



27 . 

the otTier is disguised under the forms of emigration, aiul meets with no populous 
and organized community to resent it. The address asserts that "-what Missouri 
has done, and what she is still prepared to do, is in self-defence and for self-preser- 
vation ; and from these duties she will hardly be expected to shrink." 

In view of these considerations, and with the hope of pre-^-erving peace, and har- 
mony, and fraternal feeling between all portions of our common countiy, this ad- 
dress appeals to the patriotism of the North to join with the South in putting down 
this pernicious and mischievous foreign interference with the domestic concerns of 
a distant Territory, and to allow the bona fi'/e inhabitants of Kansas to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves, in obedience to the funda- 
mental principle of the Kansas- Nebraska act. Upon this point it says : 

"If ever there -was a principle calculated to commend itself to all reasonable men, and 
reconcile all conflicting interests, this would seem to have been the one. It was the principle 
of popular sovereignty — the basis upon which our independence had been achieved — and it 
was therefore supposed to be justly dear to all Americans, of every latitude and every creed." 

But why should I accumulate evidence on this point ? I have already produced 
sufficient to convince any reasonable man that the people of Missouri never con- 
templated the invasion and conquest of the Territory of Kansas — that to whatever 
extent they imitated the example of the New England emigrant aid societies, it 
was done upon the principle of self-defence, and only for the purpose of counter- 
acting what they believed to be the dangerous tendencies of the operations of these 
societies — that the Missourians have at all times been ready and willing to abandon 
their counter-movement so soon as those who forced upon them the necessity of 
such action shotild abandon their designs, and cease their efforts to shape and con- 
trol the domestic institutions of Kansas by an unvyarranted scheme of foreign 
interference. From these fact? it is apparent that the whole responsibility of all 
the disturbances in Kansas rests upon the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company 
andjts affiliated societies. The remedy for these evils must be found in the re- 
moval of the causes aud abandonment of the policy which produced them, and in 
faithfully and rigidly carrying into eifect the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
which guaranty to the people of that Territory the perfect right " to form and 
regulate .their domestic institutions in their oivn way, subject only to the constitu- 
tion of the United States^ 

A word or two more on another point and I will close. My colleague has made 
an assault on the President of the United States for his efforts to vindicate the 
supremacy of the laws, and put down insurrection and rebellion in the Territory of 
Kansas. In my opinion, the President of the United States is entitled to the thanks 
of the whole country for the promptriess and energy with which he has met the 
crisis. It was his imperative duty to maintain the supremacy of the laws, and see 
that they were faithfully executed. It was his duty to suppress rebellion and put 
down treason. My colleague says that it will be necessary to catch the traitor 
before the President can hang him. My opinion is, that, from the signs of the 
times, and in view of all that is passing around us, as well as at a distance, there 
v/ill be very little difficulty in arresting the traitors — and that, too, without going 
all the way to Kansas to find them ! [Laughter.] This government has shown 
itself the most powerful of any on earth in all respects except one. It has shown 
itself equal to foreign war or to domestic defence — equal to any emergency that 
may fivise in the exercise of its high functions in all thinga except the power to hang 
a traitor! 

I trust in God that the time is not near at hand, and that it may never come, 
when it will be the imperative duty of those charged with the faithful execution 
of the laws to exercise that power. I trust that calmer and wiser counsels will 
prevail, that passion may subside, and reason and loyalty return, before the overt 
act shall be committed. I fervently hope that the occasion may never arise which 
shall render it necessary to test the power of the government and the firmness of 
the executive in this respect ; but if, unfortunately, that contingency shall happen, 



28 

if treason against the United States shall be consummated, far be it from my purpose 
to express the wish that the penalty of the law may not fall upon the traitor's 
head! 

My colleague also arraigns the President because he has issued a proclamation 

* against the insurgents in Kansas, on what he considers insufficient evidence, and 

because he did not take etiectual steps to prevent illegal voting by non-residents 

of the Territory, at the general election on the 30th of March, 1855. His words 

are: 

"Senators hare justified and comraended the entire action of the executive in reference to 
Kansag affairs; but, for my part, I can see no justification in the documents before us for 
iuch a proclamation and such orders as have been issued. When ap invading army marched 
into Kansas, and controlled its elections by driving its inhabitants from the polls, we were 
told the President had no such official knowledge of the fact as would justify his interference 
to protect the ballot-box. How is it that he could neither see nor hear of those invasions, in 
Btter disregard of an act of Congress, and yet is so ready, without any official information, to 
take notice of an opposition to the enactments of a spurious territorial legislature? The fact 
that Governor Reeder did not officially notify him of the Missouri invasion is no excuse. It 
li the duty of the President to see that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed ; 
and if Reeder neglected his duty he should have removed him. It cannot be that the Presi- 
dent was uninformed of the manner in which the elections in Kansas were carried ; the 
facts were proclaimed throughout the land, and known to everybody." 

Why can it not "be that the President was uninformed of the manner in which the 
elections in Kanses were carried '/" The minority report says that Governor Reeder 
was " uninformed in relation thereto " on the 5th of April, when he examined the 
returns and issued the certificates of election ! Governor Reeder was in Kansas at 
the time — in the very centre of the scenes of the alleged invasion — charged with the 
imperative dut}- of seeing the laws faithfully execiited. The election was held un- 
der his proclauiation, in ptirsuaiice of such rules and regulations as he had pre- 
scribed. The judges who conducted the elections were all appointed by him ; ,the 
returns were made to him ; he invited contests to be decided by himself in all cases 
of unfairness or irregularity ; he received protests, heard allegations, examined 
into the facts, and granted or withheld the certificates according as he found that 
the elections were fair or unfair, legal or illegal. In view of all these facts, the 
minority report exculpates and justifies the governor upon the ground that he was 
"uninformed" iu relation to the conquest of Kansas, while my colleague says that 
"it cannot be that the President," who was two thousand miles from the field of 
operations, was "uninformed" in relation to the same facts 1 How was the Presi- 
dent to know " the manner in which the elections in Kansas were carried " unless 
he could rely upon the fidelity of the governor to whom the law of Congress had 
confided the trust of superintending the elections, and collecting the facts, and 
making known the result ? But my colleague will not excuse the President for 
being " uninfoimed " of facts which, if true, the governor ought to have known, 
but failed to communicate, while the minority report, which my colleague pronounces 
a "masterly " paper, finds ample justification for the governor in the assumption 
that he was " uninformed in relation thereto," although present at the time, and 
required by law to know the facts, and clothed with the power and means of ascer- 
taining them. But my colleague will not excuse the President for the reason that 
it is his duty " to see that the laws of the United States bo faithfully executed." 
My colleague forgets, if he ever knew the fact, that by the act of Congress erect- 
ing the Territory the governor was charged with th« duty aud responsibility of 
conducting and managing the first election, and that, consequently, his proclama- 
tion prescribing the rules and regulations under which this particular election was 
held became the law for this purpose, which he, as governor of the Territory, in- 
stead of the President of the United States, was bound to see faithfully executed. 
Although these facts are set forth in the "masterly" report of the minority which 
ha so heartily endorses, my colleague still insists that the governor's neglect of duty 
furoishes " no excuse " for the President. We have been repeatedly told during 
this debate that the conquerors of Kansas invaded th* Territory on one day and 



29 

returned to their homes in Missouri on the next day with flags flying and drums 
beating ! The unpardonable sin which the President committed consists in the 
fact that he did not know that "Kansas had been conquered" before the event 
happened, in order " to justifiy his interference to protect the ballot-box !" Accord- 
ing to my colleague and this " masterly" report, the President should not be for- 
given, because he " could neither see nor hear of these invasions " until after the 
mischief was done and the invaders had made their escape, while Gov. Reeder, 
who, by proclamation, made the law under which the election was held, and was 
bound to see it faithfully executed, was perfectly excusable in remaining " unin- 
formed " in relation to the conquest for nearly five months after the event. 

I will not follow my colleague further in his assaults upon the President of th« 
United States. It must be apparent that nothing I can say can reconcilo him t« 
anything the President has done. 

Time will show whether the President will be able to survive the assault. I am 
not in the habit of speaking in the language of eulogy. It is not my purpose t» 
do so on this occasion. But I feel that it is due to the subject, and to the occasion, 
to express my conviction that the President is entitled to the thanks of the whola 
country, and will receive the grateful acknowledgments of every true democrat in 
the Union, for the promptness, firmness, and fidelity with which he has oerformad 
his duty upon all the issues growing out of this Kansas Nebraska ouestion. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, I feel it my duty to apologize to the Senate for th« 
desukory manner in which I hare perfoimed my public part in this discussion. Mr 
•ICVS9 is to be found in the state of my health. I have endeavored to present th« 
poiuts at issue between the majority and minority reports fairly and distinctly. 
They make up a direct issu© on certain great principles which the country must 
decide. 

When the subject shall have been thoroughly discussed and fully understood, I 
shall hav« no fear of tha verdict the people v/ill render on the points stated. 






CONGRESS 



LIBRARY OF 

ill . 

016 085 228 8 



\^>:^ / 





